People power vs. electric power in feud over proposed transmission project

File photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images.

Another night, another gathering where Maryland property owners were expressing alarm over a proposed 500,000-volt, 70-mile power transmission line that could run through their properties.

This was a meeting last week of the Baltimore County Farm Bureau, at the state fairgrounds in Timonium, where dozens of farmers, business operators and homeowners came together to decry a project that hasn’t even been formally proposed yet.

The night was stormy, almost apocalyptic — and so were the warnings about the power line’s impact on communities, individuals’ life investments and the state’s agricultural economy and traditions.

“It will destroy my past, present and future,” said Brandon Hill, whose family owns a garage door business in northern Baltimore County, but who has begun cultivating what he calls “an organic food forest” on his property.

“My land will be boxed in, cut up and destroyed,” Hill said. “And it will be the first of many projects like this if it’s allowed to go through.”

Since the beginning of summer, opposition to the so-called Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project has spread like wildfire. Landowners and elected officials have crowded into town hall meetings in Baltimore, Carroll and Frederick counties to voice their fears and anger that the project could lead to takings of multiple properties throughout the region.

And the movement continues to grow: On Monday afternoon, the bipartisan Frederick County delegation to the General Assembly expressed its opposition.

In a letter to the Maryland Public Service Commission, which regulates utilities, the Frederick  lawmakers cited an inadequate public engagement process and scant information being made available to policymakers for their opposition, and they warned that the project would cause “unacceptable disruptions to Frederick County residents and businesses.”

What is the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project and why has it sparked such an outcry?

At first glance, the narrative sounds looks like good, old-fashioned NIMBYism — and project opponents have conceded as much.

“That’s all right,” said Justin Harrison, a fourth-generation farmer, whose family owns Farmacy Brewing and Willowdale Farm in Reisterstown. “There’s nothing wrong with it.”

Feeding a rising demand for power

But just as important, the fight over the project reveals a lot about the current electricity marketplace in the region, where demand is dramatically outstripping supply, and where ratepayers, landowners, policymakers and regulators are largely at the mercy of PJM Interconnection, which operates the electric grid in Maryland, the District of Columbia and 12 other states.

PJM, which is accused by critics of operating with very little public accountability, has been hit by complaints in recent months from elected officials, consumer advocates and environmental groups that it has not done enough to plan for an anticipated surge in demand for electric power over the next several years — at a time when power plants in the region are shutting down. Policymakers and regulators also complain that the grid operator hasn’t offered them adequate guidance on how to prepare for the nation’s changing energy landscape.

Some states rethink data centers, as ‘electricity hogs’ strain the grid

Last year, PJM estimated that it could cost upwards of $5 billion to build the transmission capacity to power data centers in its territory alone. Electricity prices are rising, in part because fossil fuel plants are closing, making supply and transmission more expensive.

And Hill is right: Fights over big power line projects are almost inevitably going to happen again and again in Maryland.

A PJM spokesperson, Jeffrey Shields, says this power line project is necessary to help address the shortage of electric power coming into and being generated in Maryland.

“Maryland needs energy infrastructure, both on the generation and transmission side,” he said. “There is no debate about that.”

Several months ago, PJM awarded a $424 million contract to PSEG, a New Jersey electric company, to build a high-voltage power transmission line from the Peach Bottom nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania, three miles north of the Maryland border along the Susquehanna River, into southern Frederick County, site of a proposed data center campus. Eventually, the lines would be extended under the Potomac River into Northern Virginia, to help help power dozens of data centers there. These massive energy consumers have become increasingly necessary across the country, as Americans require ever more power and data storage for the internet and artificial intelligence technologies.

But there is no formal proposal yet for the power project before the Maryland Public Service Commission, which, along with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), will have ultimate say over whether it can be built. In fact, there isn’t likely to be a formal proposal submitted to the PSC until late fall or early winter.

But PSEG has released three possible routes for the power line to run from the nuclear plant in Pennsylvania through Baltimore, Carroll and Frederick counties. It would also service Maryland’s largest data center development now under way, at an old aluminum plant in Frederick County.

Residents fear the lines could require a taking of their property, and they warn of various potential environmental and public health impacts. They also complain that PJM hasn’t been transparent about the necessity for the project — an accusation the grid operator vehemently denies.

Maryland is slowly getting into the data center game, but the pace is likely to accelerate. The legislature this year passed a bill , which was a top priority of Gov. Wes Moore (D), to make it easier to win environmental approvals for data center developments.

And while the proposed power line project would be servicing data centers that are already in place, almost all of the lawmakers who are vocally opposing the project voted for the data center expansion bill earlier this year. The measure passed unanimously in the House of Delegates and by a 43-3 vote in the state Senate.

Lawmakers have shown up at town halls about the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project throughout the summer, and the Farm Bureau event was no exception. There were four Baltimore County legislators in attendance — Sens. Benjamin Brooks (D) and Shelly Hettleman (D) and Dels. Michele Guyton (D) and Nino Mangione (R), along with former Del. Pat McDonough (R) — though none of them spoke.

All of the current officeholders voted in favor of the data center legislation this spring.

That fact is not lost on the members of the Baltimore County Farm Bureau.

“That’s why we wanted these folks here — to make sure they heard from their constituents now,” said Steve Gore, a beef cattle farmer.

“I’m not sure,” Guyton said, “that there’s a direct connection” between the data center vote and the current dispute.

But even though the organizers of the various town halls over the past several weeks have invited the lawmakers to attend, it isn’t clear — even to the legislators themselves — if there is a legislative remedy to the controversy over new power line projects.

“We can’t make promises,” Guyton said. “We can use the power we have to try to get answers.”

Brooks, who serves on the Senate Committee on Education, Energy and the Environment and chaired a utility subcommittee when he served in the House, said it’s possible that the legislature can seek alternatives or ways to increase capacity on existing power lines. He called data centers “energy hogs” but acknowledged, “these electrons have to come from somewhere.”

Brooks suggested Maryland policymakers reach out to their counterparts in other states to try to exert more authority over PJM, the grid operator.

“It would be nice if the PJM states could act in unison,” he said.

In fact, that is beginning to happen.

Members of Congress see ‘a lack of forward-looking grid planning’

In Maryland and in some other states, PJM has been roundly criticized for not doing enough to ready states for the demand for more energy sources. In Maryland, for example, most of the coal plants are being retired — but PJM did ask the operators of the Brandon Shores plant in Anne Arundel to stay open past its anticipated 2025 closure to ensure grid reliability, perhaps for as many as three more years. The owners are now seeking guidance from the FERC about how to proceed.

In recent weeks, four Democratic governors in PJM states, including Moore, have sought greater say over PJM’s planning for using more carbon-free electricity. The governors wrote in a letter that “close coordination” is necessary between PJM and the states to achieve “a collective vision.”

Last month, 69 legislators from 10 states called on PJM to quickly implement a new FERC order regarding transmission planning. Strong long-term transmission within the PJM region is critical to the affordability and reliability of the grid, the lawmakers wrote in a letter, which was spearheaded by Maryland Del. Lorig Charkoudian (D-Montgomery).

“Legislators across this country understand the importance of proactive transmission planning to meet our states’ economic development, climate and rate-payer protection goals,” said Charkoudian, citing “PJM’s historical failures at transmission planning.”

Charkoudian and lawmakers in other states have introduced legislation that they argue would provide more transparency into PJM internal proceedings, but those efforts have stalled so far.

Just last week, five members of Maryland’s congressional delegation, led by U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D), wrote to PJM , suggesting it was the grid operator’s responsibility to find alternative ways of providing additional power into Maryland beyond keeping the Brandon Shores coal-fired plant open through 2028.

“The delayed retirement of Brandon Shores exemplifies how outdated PJM processes are failing PJM customers, especially Marylanders,” said the letter from Van Hollen, Sen. Ben Cardin (D) and Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-8th), John Sarbanes (D-3rd) and David Trone (D-6th).

“This uneconomical coal plant just south of Baltimore was anticipated to shut down by 2025 which would have benefited the local community, Maryland ratepayers, and Maryland’s climate goals,” their letter said. “However, due to a lack of forward-looking grid planning and expedient alternatives, the plant must now remain open until at least 2028, or until sufficient transmission upgrades are completed.”

The Maryland Office of People’s Counsel, which represents ratepayers’ interests on utility matters, last month joined with consumer advocates in three other PJM states calling for the grid operator to make “more rigorous” estimates of how much additional strain data centers will place on the grid.

Shields, the PJM spokesperson, notes the looming Brandon Shores shutdown was part of an agreement the coal plant owner reached with the Sierra Club, and was made without the grid operator’s knowledge.

“It is very difficult for PJM to plan the grid when we do not have all the facts,” he said.

‘Who’s asking for this?’

But bigger-picture issues like PJM governance and oversight are of little concern to the landowners in Frederick, Carroll and Baltimore counties — and the community groups and politicians advocating for them now. They’re focused on the ultimate arbiters for the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project, the Public Service Commission and the FERC.

“The PSC is where the power is,” said Renée Hamidi, executive director of the Valleys Planning Council, a land preservation advocacy group in Baltimore County.

Because there is no formal proposal yet, the PSC is not commenting on the matter. But it has set up a mechanism for interested parties to submit comments by email at piedmontcomments.psc@maryland.gov .

Need to get in touch?

Have a news tip?

PSEG, the project developer, has scheduled a virtual town hall meeting for Wednesday evening from 6-8 p.m. Interested parties can register to participate here .

Jason Kalwa, a PSEG director, told Maryland Matters that the company has received 5,000 comments on the proposal so far and is taking care to take all the opinions into account as it develops its submission to the PSC.

“As with any project of this nature, there will be strong feelings on both sides,” he said. “We intentionally solicited public feedback at the front end of the project because we wanted to get real input from people in these communities, beyond just what the engineering process may have dictated.”

Kalwa said the company will develop its final proposal “with an eye toward avoiding built infrastructure (peoples’ homes) and environmentally sensitive areas, while also being careful to account for historic areas and agricultural impacts as much as possible.”

Meanwhile, Mangione, the state lawmaker, has scheduled another town hall for Aug. 21, from 6-10 p.m. at Hereford High School in Parkton.

“Residents have been blindsided by attempts to rush this project through and they are entitled to transparency,” Mangione said. PSEG has agreed to participate, he said, but PJM has not.

Relatedly, the Maryland Tech Council has scheduled a daylong summit on Aug. 29 at Frederick Community College to discuss the future and potential of data centers in the state.

Joanne Frederick, a local farmer, has organized a group in opposition to the project with the name and website stopmprp.com. She said the group already has 20,000 members.

“My phone’s been ringing off the hook, and I welcome the concerns,” Hamidi said. “Every single acre tells a story.”

Kalwa expressed optimism that the opposition would wane with time.

“We believe that when residents see the final product, they will see their concerns reflected in our work,” he said.

But for some of the farmers, there’s a bitter irony knowing that the rural lifestyle they cherish and have chosen to fight for could be obliterated to accommodate modern amenities like the internet and AI.

“Who’s asking for this?” asked Harrison, the Reisterstown farmer, at last week’s farm bureau meeting. “Are we asking for this in this room?”

– This story was updated on Wednesday, Aug. 14, to include comments from PJM.